Hi Elephant
> A short comment. Simplicity and complexity are features of our picture of
> the world rather than of the world (which is continuous and therefore not
> individuated, and so neither simple nor complex).
I disagree with this part. It seems to me that you are saying that simplicity
and complexity are subjective whereas the world is objective without actually
using the (forbidden) words subjective and objective. Aren't you?
This "picture of the world" you mentioned is according to the MoQ simply
intellectual patterns reflecting other patterns and are just as real as any
other pattern of the world. As such, those patterns can fall anywhere on the
complex - simple axis. Granted, different persons might place them on different
location on this axis, but what else is new in the world of the MoQ?
> For this reason I do not
> find *definitions* of the passage of time in terms of entropy movement on
> the complex - simple axis terribly plausible. Time passes, and there's an
> end on it. This is as much as we can say, this is what time is.
As I said in my previous post, I agree that time shouldn't be defined based
on entropy, but I disagree with your reasoning. I also believe we can say more
about time than just "Time passes, and there's an end on it". I really
believe that we can dig into a quantum level and discover the true nature of
time. Another "solution" to the time problem is to say that "Time is a concept,
a logical construct", but that's just to give up and say that "time is actually
not real, just something we thought up". Now, do the "reality check" on the
concept of time and see what happens. Remove time from reality and reality
would change into something completely different. Actually, it's so hard to
imagine reality without time that most people probably can't.
One approach, as I tried in a previous post, to look into the quantum level to
discover what time is, is to compare level boundaries. This is a technique I've
often used in the past to get a better grasp of the MoQ, the levels and reality.
Now, take time. Time is one of the rules, or qualities that inorganic patterns
obey, or value. Gravity is another.
Then, take taste. Taste is one of the most basic rules, or qualities that
biological patterns obey, or value.
Does anybody see the analogy?
With taste, we know where it comes from. Or rather, we know what inorganic
processes that causes us to taste, we still can't say much more about what
the biological sensation of taste is, more than just taste.
With time on the other hand, we don't know Jack Schitt,
(http://www.twistedhumor.com/program_files/knowjackschitt.html :)
But I think we can find out much more if we just take a deep look into
the quantum level to discover the processes behind the concept of time. As
I've said before, quantum patterns don't obey time, just as inorganic patterns
don't obey taste. In other words, time is created by the quantum level and
valued by the inorganic. We can see that much, does anybody have a suggestion
as to how we can see more?
Magnus
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST